Panasonic DP-UB9000P1K

[PWRmx24]

Do you all think this is a good option with my setup? I'm thinking the tone mapping may give me a slighlty better picture on my older projector.
Blu-ray Player: Sony UBP-X800M2 (HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2, Dolby Atmos, HDR)
Projector: JVC DLA X750R (1080p native, 4K eshift4, HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2)
AVR: Rotel RSP-1570 (1080P, HDMI 1.3, Dolby TrueHD and DTS‑HD Master Audio)

 

[Verdinut]

Do you all think this is a good option with my setup? I'm thinking the tone mapping may give me a slighlty better picture on my older projector.
Blu-ray Player: Sony UBP-X800M2 (HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2, Dolby Atmos, HDR)
Projector: JVC DLA X750R (1080p native, 4K eshift4, HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2)
AVR: Rotel RSP-1570 (1080P, HDMI 1.3, Dolby TrueHD and DTS‑HD Master Audio)

Sony was a key developer of the 4K technology and released some of the first Ultra HD Blu-ray players. You won't get any improvement in the performance with the more expensive Panasonic player.

 

[Indydan]

I do not know if you will get an improvement. But, I have owned a Panasonic 9000 for nearly two years. It is a fantastic player!
The video and audio quality are top notch, and the build quality is awesome. It is worth every penny.

I previously had a Sony UBP 700; and the Panasonic is a better player.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I do not know if you will get an improvement. But, I have owned a Panasonic 9000 for nearly two years. It is a fantastic player!
The video and audio quality are top notch, and the build quality is awesome. It is worth every penny.

I previously had a Sony UBP 700; and the Panasonic is a better player.

Better reliability and consistency?

Or better 4K picture quality or Dolby Atmos sound quallity?

 

[TLS Guy]

Do you all think this is a good option with my setup? I'm thinking the tone mapping may give me a slighlty better picture on my older projector.
Blu-ray Player: Sony UBP-X800M2 (HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2, Dolby Atmos, HDR)
Projector: JVC DLA X750R (1080p native, 4K eshift4, HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2)
AVR: Rotel RSP-1570 (1080P, HDMI 1.3, Dolby TrueHD and DTS‑HD Master Audio)

Well, I have one of each in the rack. Actually I have the DP-UB9000. The only difference is the DAC, due to a factory fire, but their performance is identical.

If anything I think the Sony is the slightly better player, it is certainly no worse and it plays SACDs.

I will say that during the first years the Panasonic was glitchy, but improved with software updates.

Panasonic customer support is non existent. A year or more ago it would not turn on and stay on. I found via the Internet there was a software update they did not inform customers about. I found via the NET they was a way to force the software update, and download it. That has solved the problem and it has been the best since I have owned it, since that happened.

Be aware that Panasonic have no service centers which is bad.

Personally I would not buy the Panasonic, it will perform no better than the Sony, which has been an excellent player. It is cheaper, but if pushed I would give the very slight edge to the Sony.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, I have one of each in the rack. Actually I have the DP-UB9000. The only difference is the DAC, due to a factory fire, but their performance is identical.

If anything I think the Sony is the slightly better player, it is certainly no worse and it plays SACDs.

I will say that during the first years the Panasonic was glitchy, but improved with software updates.

Panasonic customer support is non existent. A year or more ago it would not turn on and stay on. I found via the Internet there was a software update they did not inform customers about. I found via the NET they was a way to force the software update, and download it. That has solved the problem and it has been the best since I have owned it, since that happened.

Be aware that Panasonic have no service centers which is bad.

Personally I would not buy the Panasonic, it will perform no better than the Sony, which has been an excellent player. It is cheaper, but if pushed I would give the very slight edge to the Sony.

Because in your experience, the Sony is less glitchy and more consistent/reliable than the Panasonic?

 

[TLS Guy]

Because in your experience, the Sony is less glitchy and more consistent/reliable than the Panasonic?

Not now, they are both pretty much equivalent, except for the fact the Sony can decode DSD and the Panasonic can't.

However, the Panasonic got off to a really bad start and was a PITA for the first two to three years. It was basically released before being properly "debugged".

Essentially, except for the DSD they are both essentially equivalent. However the SONY is a much better value. So, on value for money it wins.

One thing a should add, is that the Panasonic has an apparent higher build quality. It is heavier and gives at least the impression of being more solidly built, but on performance per pound of weight it looses.

 

[Indydan]

Better reliability and consistency?

Or better 4K picture quality or Dolby Atmos sound quallity?

Better 4k image quality, as well as sound quality.

 

[TLS Guy]

Better 4k image quality, as well as sound quality.

They are both essentially equivalent on PQ and SQ. If you think you will getter better overall improvement in PQ or SQ you won't. It will be essentially a lateral move. You will lose DSD decoding if that matters to you.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Better 4k image quality, as well as sound quality.

I think that’s just bias.

The ATMOS is just a bitstream digital signal, which your processor (AVP or AVR) decodes into the actual sound. So the sound quality is determined by your processor, not the digital bitstream. Unless you are letting the player process the ATMOS and send PCM to your AVP, which is more rare since the AVP does a much better job.

The 4K Video digital signal can be processed by either the Player or AVP/AVR or Projector. But usually all 3 are extremely good at it. Most people who own $10K-$20K Projectors will let their high-end Projectors do the Video Processing (HDR, DV), not the player.

 

[Indydan]

I think that’s just bias.

The ATMOS is just a bitstream digital signal, which your processor (AVP or AVR) decodes into the actual sound. So the sound quality is determined by your processor, not the digital bitstream.

The 4K Video digital signal can be processed by either the Player or AVP/AVR or Projector. But usually all 3 are extremely good at it.

So, what is the point of buying a better specced and more expensive player, if one does not get better performance?
I wish there was a site that meausured these things objectively, so that we could see or not differences between players. Secrets of home theater and hifi had a great measuring routine back in the early days of DVD players. They would produce objective numbers and tests on DVD players. It would be nice to have something like that these days.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So, what is the point of buying a better specced and more expensive player, if one does not get better performance

There are theories.

If you are using your Player to Process the Video and send that video to the TV because the TV’s video processor isn’t that good, then it might make sense.

If you are using your Player to Process the Sound and send that sound to your Analog Preamp/Amp or to the AVR that doesn’t seem to subjectively do a good job processing audio, then it might make sense.

Theoretically, higher end players are better built, so they may be more reliable than cheaper players. My $150 Sony 4K player broke after 2 years. So your player may last 20 years (or it might not).

BTW, I used to own a $4K Universal Player back in the day. Heck, my LaserDisc player was also $2K.

These days I own a $150 Panasonic 4K Player.

I think the word for all this is “diminishing returns”.

But I also think spending $500-$1K on a player is fine also. Just not for me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not now, they are both pretty much equivalent, except for the fact the Sony can decode DSD and the Panasonic can't.

However, the Panasonic got off to a really bad start and was a PITA for the first two to three years. It was basically released before being properly "debugged".

Essentially, except for the DSD they are both essentially equivalent. However the SONY is a much better value. So, on value for money it wins.

One thing a should add, is that the Panasonic has an apparent higher build quality. It is heavier and gives at least the impression of being more solidly built, but on performance per pound of weight it looses.

I had a $150 4K Sony player that died in 2 years. Then I got a $150 4K Panasonic player that still works after 4 years.

I think @Tankini has 2 Sony 4K players and he likes them with firmware updates.

So maybe just luck of the draw on these things.

 

[TLS Guy]

So, what is the point of buying a better specced and more expensive player, if one does not get better performance?
I wish there was a site that meausured these things objectively, so that we could see or not differences between players. Secrets of home theater and hifi had a great measuring routine back in the early days of DVD players. They would produce objective numbers and tests on DVD players. It would be nice to have something like that these days.

I think you are looking at the problem through old analog equipment eyes.

In the days of disc and magnetic tape superb procesion engineering was key to excellent results. In the digital era the same rules and considerations do not apply.

Things changed with the advent of the CD. In fact the price pyramid inverted in many ways. So the players that cost the most, had the most trouble playing discs. The founder of Hyperion audio, Ted Perry, actually said that the probability of a player able to play most discs was INVERSELY related to price. This was brought home to me, when I had to do a minor repair on a friends MacIntosh disc player. I found that the disc drive was the cheapest of cheapest Sanyo drive!

So a player need an accurate laser tracking system and the ability to send an error free digital stream. Generally, the AVR, AVP or TV does the decoding. Generally there is not really significant audible differences between DACs. The processors do vary though, and will be in the receiving device as a rule.

Now picture quality can vary, but again this will be largely determined by the receiving device. I noted a better picture with my AV 10, and also the processing and sound field was improved, especially for high quality Atmos streams.

So for disc players it really comes down to the ability to track most dics, and provide a stable digital stream. Quite a bit of this is totally independent on the cost of the device. The only other consideration is that if it built like a "tank" it might have a longer life, but again no guarantees.

So, my advice stands, that the only thing you will gain by adding another player is a back up device. You will not get anything else.